Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution

A Cursory Comparison Between Several of the
    Resolutions of the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. and Those of the
    “Conference”

The question of the provisional revolutionary government is the
      pivot of the tactical questions of the Social-Democratic
      movement at the present time. It is neither possible nor
      necessary to dwell in as great detail on the other resolutions
      of the Conference. We shall confine ourselves merely to
      indicating briefly a few points which confirm the difference in
      principle, analysed above, between the tactical trends of the
      resolutions of the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. and those of
      the Conference resolutions.

Take the question of the attitude towards the tactics of the
      government on the eve of the revolution. Once again you will
      find a comprehensive answer to this question in one of the
      resolutions of the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. This
      resolution takes into consideration all the multifarious
      conditions and tasks of the particular moment: the exposure of
      the hypocrisy of the government’s concessions, the utilisation
      of “travesties of popular representation,” the achievement by
      revolutionary means of the urgent demands of the working class
      (the principal one being the eight-hour working day), and,
      finally, resistance to the Black Hundreds. In the Conference
      resolutions this question is scattered over several sections:
      “resistance to the dark forces of reaction” is mentioned only in
      the preamble of the resolution on the attitude to other
      parties. Participation in elections to representative bodies is
      considered separately from the question of “compromises” between
      tsarism and the bourgeoisie. Instead of calling for the
      achievement of an eight-hour working day by revolutionary means,
      a special resolution, with the high-sounding title “On the
      Economic Struggle,” merely repeats (after high-flown and very
      stupid phrases about “the central place occupied by the labour
      question in the public life of Russia”) the old slogan of
      agitation for “the legislative institution of an eight-hour
      working day.” The inadequacy and the belatedness of this slogan
      at the present time are too obvious to require proof.

The question of open political action. The Third Congress takes
      into consideration the impendingradicalchange in our
      activity. Secret activity and the development ofthe secret
      apparatus must on no account be abandoned: this would be playing
      into the hands of the police and be of the utmost advantage to
      the government. But at the same time we cannot start too soon
      thinking about open action as well. Expedient forms of such
      action and, consequently, special apparatus—less
      secret—must bepreparedimmediately for this
      purpose. The legal and semi-legal societies must be made use of
      with a view to transforming them, as far as possible, into bases
      of the future open Social-Democratic Labour Party in Russia.

Here too the Conference divides up the question, and fails to
      issue any integral slogans. There bobs up as a separate point
      the ridiculous instruction to the Organisation Commission to see
      to the “placing” of its legally functioning publicists. There is
      the wholly absurd decision “to subordinate to its influence the
      democratic newspapers that set themselves the aim of rendering
      assistance to the working-class movement.” This is the professed
      aim of all our legal liberal newspapers, nearly all of which are
      of theOsvobozhdeniyetrend. Why should not the editors
      of theIskramake a start themselves in carrying out
      their advice and give us an example of how to subject theOsvobozhdeniyeto Social-Democratic influence?

      ...Instead of the slogan of utilising the legally existing
      unions for the purpose of establishing bases for the Party, we
      are given, first, particular advice about the “trade” unions
      only (that all Party members must join them) and, secondly,
      advice to guide “the
      revolutionary organisations of the workers” = “organisations not
      officially constituted” = “revolutionary workers’ clubs.” How
      these “clubs” come to be classed as unofficially constituted
      organisations, what these “clubs” really are—goodness only
      knows. Instead of definite and clear instructions from a supreme
      Party body, we have some jottings of ideas and the rough drafts
      of publicists. We get no complete picture of the beginning of
      the Party’s transition to an entirely new basis in all its
      work.

The “peasant question” was presented by the Party Congress and
      by the Conference in entirely different ways. The Congress drew
      up a resolution on the “attitude to the peasant movement,” the
      Conference on “work among the peasants.” In the one case prime
      importance is attached to the task ofguiding the widespread
      revolutionary-democratic movement in the general national
      interests of the fight against tsarism. In the other instance,
      the question is reduced to mere “work” among a particular
      section of society. In the one case, a central practical slogan
      for our agitation is advanced, calling for the immediate
      organisation of revolutionary peasant committees in order to
      carry out all the democratic changes. In the other, a “demand
      for the organisation of committees” is to be presented to a
      constituent assembly. Why must we wait for this constituent
      assembly? Will it really be constituent? Will it be stable
      without the preliminary and simultaneous establishment of
      revolutionary peasant committees? All these questions are
      ignored by the Conference. All its decisions reflect the general
      idea which we have traced—namely, that in the bourgeois
      revolution we must do only our special work, without setting
      ourselves the aim of leading the entire democratic movement and
      of doing this independently. Just
      as the Economists constantly harped on the idea that the
      Social-Democrats should concern themselves with the economic
      struggle, leaving it to the liberals to take care of the
      political struggle, so the new-Iskraists keep harping in all
      their discussions on the idea that we should creep into a modest
      corner out of the way of the bourgeois revolution, leaving it to
      the bourgeoisie to do the active work of carrying out the
      revolution.

Finally, we cannot but note also the resolution on the attitude
      toward other parties. The resolution of the Third Congress of
      the R.S.D.L.P. speaks of exposing all the limitations and
      inadequacies of the bourgeois movement for emancipation, without
      entertaining the naïve idea of enumerating every possible
      instance of such limitation from congress to congress or of
      drawing a line of distinction between bad bourgeois and good
      bourgeois. The Conference, repeating the mistake made by
      Starover, persistently searched for such a line, developed the
      famous “litmus paper” theory. Starover started from a very good
      idea: to put the strictest possible terms to the
      bourgeoisie. Only he forgot that any attempt to separate in
      advance the bourgeois democrats who are worthy of approval,
      agreements, etc., from those who are unworthy leads to a
      “formula” which is immediately thrown overboard by the
      development of events and which introducesconfusion into the
      proletarian class consciousness. The emphasis is shifted from
      real unity in the struggle to declarations, promises,
      slogans. Starover was of the opinion that “universal and equal
      suffrage, direct elections and secret ballot” was such a radical
      slogan. But before two years elapsed the “litmus paper” proved
      its worthlessness, the slogan of universal suffrage was taken
      over by theOsvobozbdentsi, who not only came no closer
      to Social-Democracy as a result of this, but, on the contrary,
      tried by means of this very slogan to mislead the workers and
      divert them from Socialism.

Now the new-Iskraists are setting “terms” that are even
      “stricter,” they are “demanding” from the enemies of tsarism
      “energetic and unequivocal” (!?) “support of every determined
      action of the organised proletariat,” etc., up to and including
      “active participation in the self-armament of the people.” The
      line has been drawn much further—but nonetheless this line
      is again already obsolete, it revealed its worthlessness at
      once. Why, for instance, is there no slogan of a republic? How
      is it that the Social-Democrats—in the interest of
      “relentless revolutionary war against all the foundations of the
      system of social estates and the monarchy”—“demand” from
      the bourgeois democrats anything you like except a fight for a
      republic?

That this question is not mere captiousness, that the mistake of
      the new-Iskraists is of most vital political significance is
      proved by the “Russian Liberation League” (seeProletary,

			       No. 4).[1]These “enemies of tsarism” will fully
      meet all the “requirements” of the newIskrasupporters. And yet we have shown that the spirit ofOsvobozhdeniyereigns in the program (or lack of
      program) of this “Russian Liberation League” and that theOsvobozhdentsican easily take it in tow. The
      Conference, however, declares in the concluding section of the
      resolutionthat “Social-Democracy will continue to oppose thehypocritical friends of the people, all those political
      parties which, though they display a liberal and democratic
      banner, refuse to render genuine support to the revolutionary
      struggle of the proletariat.” The “Russian Liberation League”
      not only does not refuse this support but offers it most
      insistently. Is that a guarantee that the leaders of this League
      are not “hypocritical friends of the people,” even though they
      areOsvobozhdentsi?

You see: by inventing “terms” in advance and presenting
      “demands” which are ludicrous by reason of their grim impotence,
      the new-Iskraists immediately put themselves in a ridiculous
      position. Their terms and demands immediately prove inadequate
      when it comes to gauging living realities. Their chase after
      formulae is hopeless, for no formula can embrace all the various
      manifestations of hypocrisy, inconsistency and limitations of
      the bourgeois democrats. It is not a matter of “litmus paper,”
      of forms, or written and printed demands, nor is it a matter of
      drawing, in advance, a line of distinction between hypocritical
      and sincere “friends of the people”; it is a matter of real
      unity in the struggle, of unabating criticism by
      Social-Democrats of every “uncertain” step taken by bourgeois
      democracy. What is needed for a “genuine consolidation of all
      the social forces interested in democratic change” is not the
      “points” over which the Conference laboured so assiduously and
      so vainly, but the ability to put forward genuinely
      revolutionary slogans. For this slogans are needed that will
      raise the revolutionary and republican bourgeoisie to the level
      of the proletariat and not reduce the aims of the proletariat to
      the level of the monarchist bourgeoisie. For this the most
      energetic participation in the insurrection and not sophist
      evasions of the urgent task of armed insurrection is needed.

[1]Proletary, No. 4, which appeared on June 4, 1905, contained a
        lengthy article entitled “A New Revolutionary Labour League”.

      The article gives the contents of the appeals issued by this league
      which assumed the name of “Russian Liberation League” and which set
      itself the aim of convening a constituent assembly with the aid of an
      armed insurrection. Further, the article defines the attitude of the
      Social-Democrats to such non-Party leagues. How far this league
      really existed, and what its fate was in the revolution is absolutely
      unknown to us.[Author’s note to the 1907
      edition.–Ed.]—Lenin